Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview.

Abstract

Real-life appraisal interviews conducted by 92 manager-subordinate pairs were studied intensively. Reactions of subordinates were systematically obtained before and after their appraisal interviews and the proceedings in the actual interviews were carefully documented by trained observers. Measures of subsequent performance improvement realized as a result of the appraisal interviews were taken 12 wks later The results indicated that a manager's attempts to assist a subordinate by pointing up improvement needs were likely to be perceived by the subordinate as threatening to his self-esteem and to result in defensive behavior. The greater the threat, the less favorable the attitude toward the appraisal system and the less the subsequent constructive improvement in job performance realized. These reactions were strong to the extent that the subordinate had relatively low occupational self-esteem Some practical implications for appraisal practices are cited

The rise (and fall) of industrial democracy. A lesson for industrial psychologists

“…Only in the experiment by Morse & Reimer (1956) was there a consistent pattern of statistically significant results showing that manipulation of participation affected employee satisfaction. French, Israel & As (1960) found significant changes on only three out of fourteen measures, while Kay, French & Meyer (1962) and Juralewicz (1974) did not obtain any at all. In the remaining field experiments (Coch & French, 1948;Lawler & Hackman, 1969) reliance was placed entirely on the impressions of the investigators and there is no guarantee that participants would have described their feelings in the same way.…”

“…However, there have been a few experimental studies in which the amount of participation has been deliberately manipulated (e.g., Coch & French, 1948;French Israel & As, 1960;Morse & Reimer, 1956;Juralewicz, 1974;Kay, French & Meyer, 1962;Lawler & Hackman, 1969).…”

Simulation methods for teaching the performance appraisal interview

“…Establishing goals for the subordinate to achieve on the job during the interview has been found to result in several positive outcomes such as greater subordinate satisfaction and perceived accuracy of the evaluation (Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978), perceived fairness (Burke, Weitzel, & Weir, 1978;Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, 1978), perceived utility of the interview (Greller, 1978), mutual understanding (Burke, Weitzel, & Weir, 1978) and subordinate desire to improve as well as actual improvement (Burke, Weitzel, & Weir, 1978;Burke & Wilcox, 1969). Interviewer criticism resulted in greater defensiveness, more negative attitudes toward appraisals and less improvement in subordinate performance (Kay, Meyer, & French, 1965). However, when the criticism was revised into goals, greater subordinate performance resulted (French, Kay, & Meyer, 1966).…”

“…For instance, Nemeroff and Wexley (1977) found that praise by the superior correlated positively with subordinate satisfaction with the interview and motivation to improve. However, Kay, Meyer and French (1965) discovered that praise would not have positive effects if subordinates perceive it to simply condition them for criticism to follow. Holloway and Wampold (1983) found that superiors devalued themselves and their subordinates for excessive use of supportive communication and did not find it to positively influence any of the subordinate's judgments about the interview.…”

“…Among the many things which could be evaluated are the interviewer's ability to: (1) provide a clearly discernable introduction, body and conclusion; (2) include greeting behavior in the introduction which establishes a favorable atmosphere for the interview and reduces anxiety for the interviewee; (3) include orienting behavior which explains who will structure the interview and how it will be structured, explains the purpose and nature of the interview, and establishes proper rapport with the interviewee; (4) probe for specific information on each topic introduced; (5) provide specific plans of action for improving job deficiencies and set work objectives which should be met prior to the next appraisal interview (McConkie, 1979;Greller, 1975;Nemeroff & Wexley, 1977); (6) provide the interviewee with the opportunity to make suggestions and seek information (Wexley, Singh, & Yukl, 1973); (7) include at least four of the following types of questions: open, closed, probe, leading, and mirror;^ (8) make specific references to the job evaluation form; (9) maintain appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviors which maintain an open climate, demonstrate active listening, communicate empathy and enhance credibility (Burke & Wilcox, 1969;Kay, Meyer, & French, 1965;Nemeroff & Wexley, 1977); (10) phrase interview questions appropriately according to language, information level of the respondent and complexity; (11) specify when the next appraisal interview will take place; (12) maintain spontaneity; and (13) complete the interview within a time frame of 12-15 minutes.…”